I don't know that "disrespectful" is the right term, at least, not without context.

I mean, "she's a great gal, plenty tough at the table, too," is a compliment, no?

Whereas, "Hi gals, who's going to be donating to my kid's College fund today," is anything but . . .

Males are generally much more careful around females then they are around other males, regardless of age. If you think that the college fund comment was over the line, you haven't heard the table talk that guys/men/boys/males use at the table to tilt other guys/men/boys/males, especially when there are no females at the table.

For example:

Your mom was good last night.
I own you.
You're my *****.
Your balls aren't big enough to make that call (and various other references to inadaqute genitals.)
"I'LL TAKE ALL YOUR MONEY, AND YOUR CHILDREN WILL STARVE!"--Tony G, talking to an amateur with pictures of his kids on the table.
"You're just a scared little boy."--Tony G again.

One of my favorite things to have noticed was how calling someone a lady can be unacceptable, but it's almost never unacceptable if it's pluralized.

"Hey, lady!"

"Hey, ladies!"

"Listen, lady."

"Listen, ladies."

I wonder if other languages have a weird nuance like that where a singular word is unacceptable but the plural is fine. Off topic, I know, but it just popped into my mind while I was browsing some of these threads.

In basic training the drills always addressed large groups of us as guys or gentleman or something similar (if they weren't using a rank or an insult or some sort). I always felt like on some level I SHOULD have been bothered by it but I really wasn't. It just made no sense for them to say "Okay men and 3 women, listen up."

In basic training the drills always addressed large groups of us as guys or gentleman or something similar (if they weren't using a rank or an insult or some sort). I always felt like on some level I SHOULD have been bothered by it but I really wasn't. It just made no sense for them to say "Okay men and 3 women, listen up."

I mean if they sustained stress fractures in their pelvis they should get compensated, I'd say yes.

I'm not sure it's really an agree/disagree type article. Are you asking if I think female military recruits should have different standards? I can only speak for the US (and the Army specifically) but we already have different PT standards, and unless you are in an elite honors unit of some sort, as long as you aren't holding up the formation they didn't really care. My strides are somewhat shorter so I'd periodically add in an extra two quick steps in a row to keep up and and keep in time and no one ever said a thing.

Carrying heavy loads is a separate issue, but for forced ruck marching I don't remember our loads being that huge in training. In combat the gear you need is the gear you need so if you're in one of those type of units you need to be able to carry it, male or female.

I think jobs that require a very specific physical standard (like needing to be able to pick up a 100 lb tank shell, for example) should have cut offs that demonstrate meeting that standard, and they should be performance based, not gender based. But I'm not one of those people who insists that women are just like men. On average, we are shorter/slower/weaker. If that disqualifies us from certain physically demanding jobs then I don't really have a problem with it, so long as those women who CAN meet the standards of that job have equal opportunity to do so.

I am retired US army. I was in an all-male unit (infantry), and in a unit that was about 40% female (band).

I don't think I agree with the part about the heavy backpacks. In general, if everyone is performing the same function, they need the same equipment, which means the same amount of weight. You can fudge that a little bit, for example, if some gear is carried by more than one person, such as a machine gun/tripod/ammo, then you could give the heavier parts to someone stronger.

But in general, everyone has to be able to pull their weight, not just because of the principle of the thing, but also because that gear is in your pack for a reason. In most cases, there isn't anything dispensable in the 60-pound pack on your back--even if you're a 95-pound female. EDIT: I weighed 140 pounds when I was in an infantry unit, and I had to carry just as much in my pack as someone who weighed 240.

I remember getting picked to hump around one of those old radios during training in AIT. God that ****ing sucked. And we ended up in MOPP gear (chemical suits) and on a prolonged night mission during my stint.

Man was I glad to get rid of that thing. I certainly don't envy those who humped all kinds of **** around as a matter of course. But if it's necessary for the mission you do it. The smaller guys have to do the same.

FWIW it's really not that uncommon for the bigger guys to take the extra heavy equipment (SAWs, ammo cans, etc) but no one is going to lug your standard gear around for you.

I mean there's a reason those in the military have to meet and maintain a certain level of physical strength/conditioning. And if you physically can't meet that standard (male or female) you're probably going to end up injured a lot and on profile and eventually given a desk job or shuffled out altogether. There's no shame in simply not being able to do the job of a soldier. But all soldiers, male or female, are expected to be able to do the basic job of a soldier, which includes carrying a bunch of **** around on your back.

Not totally related but my first battle buddy in basic ended up washing out because of a pre-existing condition she wasn't aware of - two bones in her foot overlapped, and she kept breaking her foot when she ran (ouch). She couldn't physically complete training. Another soldier (also female) broke her hip socket (really ouch) and she was pretty tall so I doubt it was a marching thing. A male soldier washed out on psych. Some people try and just can't do the job. There's no shame in that (IMO). There's no shame in getting physically injured later - it can be a very rough job. But I think people do (or should) know that. I mean it's the military. When you sign up what do you think you're going to do? Sit around and drink tea?

I remember getting picked to hump around one of those old radios during training in AIT. God that ****ing sucked. And we ended up in MOPP gear (chemical suits) and on a prolonged night mission during my stint.

Man was I glad to get rid of that thing. I certainly don't envy those who humped all kinds of **** around as a matter of course. But if it's necessary for the mission you do it. The smaller guys have to do the same.

FWIW it's really not that uncommon for the bigger guys to take the extra heavy equipment (SAWs, ammo cans, etc) but no one is going to lug your standard gear around for you.

I mean there's a reason those in the military have to meet and maintain a certain level of physical strength/conditioning. And if you physically can't meet that standard (male or female) you're probably going to end up injured a lot and on profile and eventually given a desk job or shuffled out altogether. There's no shame in simply not being able to do the job of a soldier. But all soldiers, male or female, are expected to be able to do the basic job of a soldier, which includes carrying a bunch of **** around on your back.

Not totally related but my first battle buddy in basic ended up washing out because of a pre-existing condition she wasn't aware of - two bones in her foot overlapped, and she kept breaking her foot when she ran (ouch). She couldn't physically complete training. Another soldier (also female) broke her hip socket (really ouch) and she was pretty tall so I doubt it was a marching thing. A male soldier washed out on psych. Some people try and just can't do the job. There's no shame in that (IMO). There's no shame in getting physically injured later - it can be a very rough job. But I think people do (or should) know that. I mean it's the military. When you sign up what do you think you're going to do? Sit around and drink tea?

When I went to basic, I was a lean, mean running machine. On my first PT test, I got a perfect score on sit-ups and the 2-mile run (came in second to a college track star) but I only did two push-ups. I actually had to go through basic 3 times, to get strong enough to pass the test for push-ups. I was given the option to go home, and I turned it down. They kept me on because I had a "great attitude", everyone else who failed the test went home.

All three of my sons joined the miltary. One did a tour in Iraq, one is in Afghanistan, and one didn't make it through basic (exercise-induced asthma.)

Two of the closest things we have to a meritocracy in the US are poker and the military. You're either good enough, or you're not. Given that reality, I don't really see the need for women's tournaments. But I'm a Libertarian, and if someone wants to organize a tournament just for women (or men) and people want to play, they should be able to do so. And if someone wants to have a women's tournament with the money delivered to the table by hot guys in Speedos, go for it.

I mean if they sustained stress fractures in their pelvis they should get compensated, I'd say yes.

.

yeah but there's no article about short men suing for the same reason. what about if/when women are allowed into seal training(gi jane, you go girl, 95 pound woman kicking the **** out of a seal MC). and the psychical/psychological proves too much for them. should they be able to sue?

Anyone, male or female, who suffers any sort of permanent injury as a result of their service is entitled to compensation.

I'm 20% service connected disabled because of chronic muscle spasms and pain in my back/hips as the result of my service.

In the US you can't sue for this type of thing but there's an entire system set up to compensate service members regardless of gender for their chronic medical issues. Because military service can be brutally hard on the body.

Whether or not someone "should" be able to sue depends on that country and it's laws. It's a non issue in the US. You can't sue the military for injuries (mental or physical) sustained during service, but you can get compensation.

Anyone, male or female, who suffers any sort of permanent injury as a result of their service is entitled to compensation.

I'm 20% service connected disabled because of chronic muscle spasms and pain in my back/hips as the result of my service.

In the US you can't sue for this type of thing but there's an entire system set up to compensate service members regardless of gender for their chronic medical issues. Because military service can be brutally hard on the body.

Whether or not someone "should" be able to sue depends on that country and it's laws. It's a non issue in the US. You can't sue the military for injuries (mental or physical) sustained during service, but you can get compensation.

My opinion is that anyone who is physically capable of doing the job should be allowed to do the job.

I don't really buy that women and men can't work together because of sexual tension or whatever or that men would do stupid things being over protective of female soldiers in the field. When the **** hits the fan everyone is another soldier.

So, as I said, I think there should be a set of physical standards for any given job. If you can meet the standards you should be able to do the job. If you can't you shouldn't. This would naturally exclude all but the strongest women from certain jobs, and that's okay (IMO).

My opinion is that anyone who is physically capable of doing the job should be allowed to do the job.

I don't really buy that women and men can't work together because of sexual tension or whatever or that men would do stupid things being over protective of female soldiers in the field. When the **** hits the fan everyone is another soldier.

So, as I said, I think there should be a set of physical standards for any given job. If you can meet the standards you should be able to do the job. If you can't you shouldn't. This would naturally exclude all but the strongest women from certain jobs, and that's okay (IMO).

Makes sense to me.

I was in the army infantry for three years. We didn't have any women. There is no reason that it couldn't happen now. There might be stength issues in some positions, for example, if you have someone going down the line handing out ammo, it would be nice if he/she could carry a lot of it. Also, some crew-served weapons are very heavy, and pieces can weigh over 50 pounds. But in general, there is no reason why at least some women couldn't be a rifleman, armorer, cook, or supply sergeant in an infantry unit.

I was in an army band for 20 years. It was about 40% female. There were all kinds of different relationships in the band: siblings, father and son, dating relationships, hook-ups, and two couples who met in the band and got married. Guess who provided music for the weddings?

Having a high percentage of females in the band did not adversely affect either unit cohesion or the mission. In fact, people stayed in the unit for a long time, we traveled all over the world together, and unlike my infantry unit, the band felt very much like a family. I'm glad that I was able to stay in the band long enough to see two children of band members join the band and play along with a parent.

OMG is this thread still going, I haven't visited here in awhile, going back to read up on it now.

Edit: okay nothing much to add, I still hate the concept. I recently saw a WPT tournament that showed the girls playing Ultimate Texas Holdem and I seriously thought I was going to puke over the ridiculously silly way they were acting over their hands. It was the worst scene with them yet. It's just the whole silly over excitable girls crap that annoys the hell out of me.

most advertising revolves around young hot women. because men and women love to look at them. women stare more at women than at men. check out any ''girly'' mag, far more women than men in it (playgirl was a failure compared to the male alternatives and half the buyers are gay men anyway). even in retail or any kind of desk job hot women are huge favs to be hired since it's direct contact with people. add to that the ''women are wonderful'' effect and it's easy to understand why advertisers love'em.

OMG is this thread still going, I haven't visited here in awhile, going back to read up on it now.

Edit: okay nothing much to add, I still hate the concept. I recently saw a WPT tournament that showed the girls playing Ultimate Texas Holdem and I seriously thought I was going to puke over the ridiculously silly way they were acting over their hands. It was the worst scene with them yet. It's just the whole silly over excitable girls crap that annoys the hell out of me.

I see your point, but if I had to pick someone annoying to have at my table (and I think a lot of women would agree with me) I would rather put up with a giggly Royal Flush Girl than one of Tony G's macho rants where he's trying to intimidate another player by yelling at him.

If this was serious poker for serious money, then the calculus changes. I would want [U]both[U] Giggles and an obnoxious male jerk at my table. I don't tilt easily, and if other players at the tables are being tilted by a obnoxious male and distracted by a giggly female, it just makes my table that much weaker.

I see your point, but if I had to pick someone annoying to have at my table (and I think a lot of women would agree with me) I would rather put up with a giggly Royal Flush Girl than one of Tony G's macho rants where he's trying to intimidate another player by yelling at him.

I'm pretty sure they only "play poker" when they are being filmed for some kind of TV clip, and they are probably encouraged to be loud/ditzy/celebratory, so I give them a pass on that :P

most advertising revolves around young hot women. because men and women love to look at them. women stare more at women than at men. check out any ''girly'' mag, far more women than men in it (playgirl was a failure compared to the male alternatives and half the buyers are gay men anyway). even in retail or any kind of desk job hot women are huge favs to be hired since it's direct contact with people. add to that the ''women are wonderful'' effect and it's easy to understand why advertisers love'em.

I agree. I love to look at women. Especially ones with nice boobers. If pretty girls with nice boobers make more people play poker, me and my boobers are very happy. I agree with SGT RJ who said way up there that it is more of a broader cultural issue than anything. But within saying that, it is not an issue that offends me in the slightest